It's high time Hodges got his due

The Baseball Hall of Fame Veterans Committee announces the results of its voting on February 27 and if there's any justice, Gil Hodges will finally be enshrined in Cooperstown.

Late last year ground broke in Flushing for a new stadium for the New York Mets. At the time several area sportswriters as well as Bill O'Reilly opined that the new facility, designed as an homage to the old Ebbets Field, should be named after Brooklyn Dodger great Jackie Robinson. Robinson's breaking the color barrier in big league baseball remains a monumental achievement, one appropriately recognized when his number 42 was retired throughout the majors in 1997.

But I've always thought that Gil Hodges, the onetime Dodger slugger who would later manage and propel the Amazin's from zeroes to heroes in 1969, represents a truer link to the Mets' Brooklyn roots. CitiBank has put up a wad of cash for the right to the moniker, "Citi Field." CitiBank would do itself some great PR by changing it to "CitiBank's Hodges Field." Under the official name, appropriate recognition of the sponsor would be accorded, while us Met fans could call our new home "the Hodge," after our late, great and much-loved manager. How cool would that be?

Bitter lessons

The temperature indicator on my iMac Dashboard reads 12 degrees; with the wind chill that must place the "real feel" in the single digits. Following last Wednesday's snowstorm, the streets and sidewalks of Sleepy Hollow today are crusted with salt. They look to me like the facades of well-used chalkboards after they're wiped down with dirty erasers.

I commuted to New York City all last week, a rarity for me these days, so naturally last week we got bitter-cold weather and the first big snowfall of the year. Hoofing the one mile to the Tarrytown train station and back reminded me of years ago when I commuted eight miles each way from my parents' house to Nassau Community College on my 10-speed bike; back then when the weather was bad, just making it to class felt like a major accomplishment.

Speaking of accomplishments, I'm still trying to sort out what exactly the Democratic-controlled Congress was trying to accomplish with its passage of the nonbinding resolution against the change in tactics—grossly mislabeled "the surge"—being implemented by coalition forces on the ground in Iraq.

In a piece that was highlighted on the front page of Saturday's New York Post, Ralph Peters—like myself, a Democrat who supports the war effort—was livid:

Providing aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime is treason. It's not "just politics." It's treason.

And signaling our enemies that Congress wants them to win isn't "supporting our troops."

The "nonbinding resolution" telling the world that we intend to surrender to terrorism and abandon Iraq may be the most disgraceful congressional action since the Democratic Party united to defend slavery.

Peters added this:

The vote was a huge morale booster for al Qaeda, for Iraq's Sunni insurgents, and for the worst of the Shia militias.

And this:

This resolution has teeth…It's going to bite our combat commanders. By undermining their credibility and shaking the trust of their Iraqi counterparts, it makes it far tougher to build the alliances that might give Iraq a chance.

If you were an Iraqi, would you be willing to trust Americans and risk your life after the United States Congress voted to abandon you?

What strikes me as most unsettling about the resolution is the sheer audacity of its timing. Shortly after voting unanimously to approve the transfer of command of coalition forces to Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, the US Congress then turns around and willfully undermines the general's counterinsurgency strategy just as it gets off the ground.

Under the command of Lt. Gen. Petraeus, the US soldiers fighting with Iraqi forces to establish security in Baghdad and elsewhere are now living and working in Iraqi neighborhoods. The idea is to win the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis by increasing the visibility of Iraqi and American forces and by fostering a sense of “we’re all in this together.” As one US soldier said recently, “Now when their lights go out, so do ours.”

Needless to say, moving a sizable chunk of our combat forces out of their secure compounds and into neighborhoods rife with sectarian and insurgent violence places those forces at increased risk. The resolution passed by the Democratic-led House only heightens that risk by signaling to the enemy that a few well-placed IEDs in those neighborhoods will collapse US resolve completely.

In the words of Peters, “Congresswoman Pelosi, have you no shame?”

Thinking outside the box on climate change

Could both the UN and the man with a lock box and a chip on his shoulder the size of the Arctic Shelf be wrong about climate change?

Herewith a fascinating alternative explanation I discovered via the always-interesting Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit.

From the UK's Times Online:

So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Read the whole article.

Rather than marching lockstep with the popular consensus, this is how real science should work. Let the debate begin!

Petraeus takes charge

General David Petraeus today took command of the multinational forces serving in Iraq. Here's the complete transcript of his acceptance remarks (with thanks to Iraqslogger):

To the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Civilians of Multi-National Force - Iraq:

We serve in Iraq at a critical time. The war here will soon enter its fifth year. A decisive moment approaches. Shoulder-to-shoulder with our Iraqi comrades, we will conduct a pivotal campaign to improve security for the Iraqi people. The stakes could not be higher.

Our task is crucial. Security is essential for Iraq to build its future. Only with security can the Iraqi government come to grips with the tough issues it confronts and develop the capacity to serve its citizens. The hopes of the Iraqi people and the coalition countries are with us.

The enemies of Iraq will shrink at no act, however barbaric. They will do all that they can to shake the confidence of the people and to convince the world that this effort is doomed. We must not underestimate them.

Together with our Iraqi partners, we must defeat those who oppose the new Iraq. We cannot allow mass murderers to hold the initiative. We must strike them relentlessly. We and our Iraqi partners must set the terms of the struggle, not our enemies. And together we must prevail.

The way ahead will not be easy. There will be difficult times in the months to come. But hard is not hopeless, and we must remain steadfast in our effort to help improve security for the Iraqi people. I am confident that each of you will fight with skill and courage, and that you will remain loyal to your comrades-in-arms and to the values our nations hold so dear.

In the end, Iraqis will decide the outcome of this struggle. Our task is to help them gain the time they need to save their country. To do that, many of us will live and fight alongside them. Together, we will face down the terrorists, insurgents, and criminals who slaughter the innocent. Success will require discipline, fortitude, and initiative - qualities that you have in abundance.

I appreciate your sacrifices and those of your families. Now, more than ever, your commitment to service and your skill can make the difference between victory and defeat in a very tough mission.

It is an honor to soldier again with the members of the Multi-National Force - Iraq. I know that wherever you serve in this undertaking you will give your all. In turn, I pledge my commitment to our mission and every effort to achieve success as we help the Iraqis chart a course to a brighter future.

Godspeed to each of you and to our Iraqi comrades in this crucial endeavor.

Last week Thomas Ricks of the Washington Post wrote a revealing piece about the "warrior-intellectuals" assembled by Petraeus to turn around what everyone would now agree is a dire situation:

Army officers tend to refer to the group as “Petraeus guys” – smart colonels who have been noticed by Petraeus and who make up one of the most selective clubs in the world: military officers with doctorates from top-flight universities and combat experience in Iraq.

Essentially, the Army is turning the war over to its dissidents who have criticized the way the service has operated there over the past three years, and letting them try to wage the war their way.

“Their role is crucial if we are to reverse the effects of four years of conventional mind-set fighting an unconventional war,” said one Special Forces colonel who knows some of the officers.

Of course, the story had to throw this in:

But there is widespread skepticism that even this unusual group, with its specialized knowledge of counterinsurgency methods, will be able to win the battle of Baghdad.

That comment is then supported by quotes from "a professor at a military war college" and Bruce Hoffman, "a Georgetown University expert on terrorism," who both believe it's already "too late."

Yes, Petraeus, his brain trust, and the multinational force face a near-impossible task against a vicious and ruthless enemy and a skeptical (at best) and hostile (at worst) media. They need to turn this war around and they need to do it in 6 months.

Let the elites say what they want from the ivory towers of academia. The rest of us can only hope that the future will reveal them to be as full of hot air as anyone who has ever tried to trip up the underdog on his way to victory.

O'Hare UFO Update

Well, I'm back from hiatus. And boy, was it cold!

Once the workload eases up, I'll get back to some mini-essay writing. For now, it's going to be hit-and-run posting for a while. What the hey. It's how most bloggers do it, ain't it?

There have been some interesting developments in the O'Hare UFO story. Check out Linda Moulton Howe's "Earthfiles" to view an alleged cellphone photo of the November 7, 2006, sighting. Linda has also posted a map and an interview with one of the witnesses. Stellar reporting, and pun intended.

What's more, "Saturday Night Live" alumnus and UFO enthusiast Dan Aykroyd claims he has photos and video of the event. Now that I've gotta see.

Looks like this story isn't going away.